Why are the Lions getting killed for starting Stafford?

[GiveMeaBJ]

Let me just say that I have posted on another forum, before Stafford was even drafted, that I think Stafford will be an epic bust. He had enough trouble getting the ball into his receivers hands vs the SEC defenses, I just don't see him being a factor in the NFL. He will end up like Joey Harrington.

But, once Stafford was drafted you had to know he was going to start. Your putting him in a win-win situation. The Lions can't be worse then last year. Either way he improves the Lions. The Lions added a ton of little pieces in the off-season and I beleive they will be much more competitive this year, they have to be. Why not get Stafford as much game experience as possible? He has chemistry with Calvin so why not just throw him in and see what he can do? I believe the Lions will be packing a ton of value from a betting standpoint early in the year. Be careful betting against the Lions, these spreads are inflated a few points. The Saints have no defense, how can they give 14? Not sure if I will back the Lions yet but I think I will be.

[slacker00]

Good points. I agree that the Lions will be underrated early in the season. That 0-16 will stick in people's minds. Starting a rookie QB probably won't help.

Thing is, Culpepper is good enough to start in the NFL. Why not let Stafford sit for 4 or 5 games behind a competent vet similar to how Eli sat behind Warner? Last year was different with Matt Ryan and Flacco because there was nobody else on the QB list for those teams. In fact Flacco was thrust into the role after injuries to Boller & Troy Smith. Ryan and Flacco did fine as rookies, but this isn't the norm. Even HOF studs like Aikman and Peyton struggled as rookies. Stafford might be fine, or as fine as he can be, but Culpepper is basically an MVP calibre QB who at least deserves a shot at the job in week 1. I missed the Lions preseason, so I'm not sure how the QB competition played out.